194 replies to this topic

[caltrek]

Brett Kavanaugh Signals He’s Open to Stealing the Election for Trump

 

https://slate.com/ne...rump-fraud.html

 

Introduction:

(Slate) As the Senate was voting to elevate Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court on Monday night, the immediate stakes for the entire country were made suddenly clear by a critical election ruling from the court she now joins. On Monday night, Justice Brett Kavanaugh released a radical and brazenly partisan opinion that dashed any hopes he, as the Supreme Court’s new median justice, might slow-walk the court’s impending conservative revolution, while also threatening the integrity of next week’s election. In an 18-page lecture, the justice cast doubt on the legitimacy of many mail ballots and endorsed the most sinister component of Bush v. Gore. America’s new median justice is not a friend to democracy, and we may pay the price for Barrett’s confirmation in just eight days.

 

Monday’s order from the Supreme Court blocked a federal judge’s order that had tweaked Wisconsin’s voting laws in light of the pandemic. The judge directed election officials to count ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received by Nov. 9, finding that the unprecedented demand for mail ballots combined with Postal Service delays could disenfranchise up to 100,000 voters. An appeals court blocked his decision on Oct. 8, and on Monday, SCOTUS kept it on hold by a 5–3 vote. The court offered no majority opinion, but Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all wrote concurrences. Justice Elena Kagan penned a trenchant dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

Kavanaugh’s opinion is the most notable of the bunch because he is the new median justice and the opinion is frankly terrifying. In one passage, Kavanaugh attempted to defend the Wisconsin law disqualifying ballots received after Election Day. He pointed out that “most States” share this policy, explaining:

 

Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.

 

https://www.rawstory...o-many-readers/

 

Extract:

(Raw Story) One may disagree with a State’s policy choice to require that absentee ballots be received by election day. Indeed, some States require only that absentee ballots be mailed by election day. … But the States requiring that absentee ballots be received by election day do so for weighty reasons that warrant judicial respect. Federal courts have no business disregarding those state interests simply because the federal courts believe that later deadlines would be better.

 

Still, the length at which he went to describe the concerns about ballots coming in after Election Day and the credulity he showed is understandably concerning.

 

There’s another portion of Kavanaugh’s remarks that also caused significant alarm among some court watchers, though the issue is more technical. In a footnote, he approvingly cited former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurring opinion in the infamous 2000 election case Bush v. Gore, which handed the Republican candidate victory in the year’s disputed presidential election.

 

Kavanaugh’s footnote echoed one part of the concurrence, which was so extreme that not even all five conservative justices in the majority would sign on to it and which asserted the power of the Supreme Court to overrule state courts on matters of state law. This assertion is a massive expansion of the federal judiciary’s power, a particularly notable gambit at a time conservatives are securing a two-thirds stranglehold on the highest court. It also suggests that the Supreme Court could have even more power to insert itself into a disputed election than might otherwise be the case.

 

“This is a red alert,” said Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. “I can’t believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying.”

 

[Futurist]

In regards to DACA, Biden's administration will bring back DACA, right?

[Futurist]

 

Brett Kavanaugh Signals He’s Open to Stealing the Election for Trump

 

https://slate.com/ne...rump-fraud.html

 

Introduction:

(Slate) As the Senate was voting to elevate Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court on Monday night, the immediate stakes for the entire country were made suddenly clear by a critical election ruling from the court she now joins. On Monday night, Justice Brett Kavanaugh released a radical and brazenly partisan opinion that dashed any hopes he, as the Supreme Court’s new median justice, might slow-walk the court’s impending conservative revolution, while also threatening the integrity of next week’s election. In an 18-page lecture, the justice cast doubt on the legitimacy of many mail ballots and endorsed the most sinister component of Bush v. Gore. America’s new median justice is not a friend to democracy, and we may pay the price for Barrett’s confirmation in just eight days.

 

Monday’s order from the Supreme Court blocked a federal judge’s order that had tweaked Wisconsin’s voting laws in light of the pandemic. The judge directed election officials to count ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received by Nov. 9, finding that the unprecedented demand for mail ballots combined with Postal Service delays could disenfranchise up to 100,000 voters. An appeals court blocked his decision on Oct. 8, and on Monday, SCOTUS kept it on hold by a 5–3 vote. The court offered no majority opinion, but Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all wrote concurrences. Justice Elena Kagan penned a trenchant dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

Kavanaugh’s opinion is the most notable of the bunch because he is the new median justice and the opinion is frankly terrifying. In one passage, Kavanaugh attempted to defend the Wisconsin law disqualifying ballots received after Election Day. He pointed out that “most States” share this policy, explaining:

 

Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.

 

https://www.rawstory...o-many-readers/

 

Extract:

(Raw Story) One may disagree with a State’s policy choice to require that absentee ballots be received by election day. Indeed, some States require only that absentee ballots be mailed by election day. … But the States requiring that absentee ballots be received by election day do so for weighty reasons that warrant judicial respect. Federal courts have no business disregarding those state interests simply because the federal courts believe that later deadlines would be better.

 

Still, the length at which he went to describe the concerns about ballots coming in after Election Day and the credulity he showed is understandably concerning.

 

There’s another portion of Kavanaugh’s remarks that also caused significant alarm among some court watchers, though the issue is more technical. In a footnote, he approvingly cited former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurring opinion in the infamous 2000 election case Bush v. Gore, which handed the Republican candidate victory in the year’s disputed presidential election.

 

Kavanaugh’s footnote echoed one part of the concurrence, which was so extreme that not even all five conservative justices in the majority would sign on to it and which asserted the power of the Supreme Court to overrule state courts on matters of state law. This assertion is a massive expansion of the federal judiciary’s power, a particularly notable gambit at a time conservatives are securing a two-thirds stranglehold on the highest court. It also suggests that the Supreme Court could have even more power to insert itself into a disputed election than might otherwise be the case.

 

“This is a red alert,” said Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. “I can’t believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying.”

I suspect that Democrats won't accept any SCOTUS ruling favoring the GOP this year as meekly as they did back in 2000.

[caltrek]

American College of Physicians Continues Advocacy for Affordable Care Act as Supreme Court Decision Approaches

 

https://www.acponlin...sion-approaches

 

Introduction:

Nov. 6, 2020 (ACP) – With the well-being of the U.S. medical system on the line, the American College of Physicians will be watching closely this month as the Supreme Court considers a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

 

In unity with other medical societies, ACP has already made its opinion known to the justices. “Through our public statements and briefs to the courts, we have never wavered in our support for patients and physicians: The ACA must remain the law of the land,” said Bob Doherty, ACP senior vice president for governmental affairs and public policy. “It's not hyperbole to say that the entire health care system hangs in the balance.”

 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas on Nov. 10. The state of Texas and 19 other states challenged the ACA in 2018, charging that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional because no penalty is assessed if people fail to get coverage. Seventeen states, led by California, are defending the ACA; the Trump administration declined to do so and instead supports overturning it.

 

The worst-case scenario will occur if the court overturns the entire ACA. Millions of Americans would lose insurance coverage, and there would be no more national protections against higher insurance rates and required benefits for people with preexisting conditions.

 

As the Kaiser Family Foundation notes, “the ACA also made other sweeping changes throughout the health care system including expanding Medicaid eligibility for low-income adults; requiring private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid expansion coverage of preventive services with no patient cost sharing; phasing out the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole coverage gap; reducing the growth of Medicare payments to health care providers and insurers; establishing new national initiatives to promote public health, care quality, and delivery system reforms; and authorizing a variety of tax increases to finance these changes. All of these provisions could be overturned if all or most of the ACA is struck down by the courts, and it would be enormously complex to disentangle these provisions from the overall health care system.”

[Futurist]

 

American College of Physicians Continues Advocacy for Affordable Care Act as Supreme Court Decision Approaches

 

https://www.acponlin...sion-approaches

 

Introduction:

Nov. 6, 2020 (ACP) – With the well-being of the U.S. medical system on the line, the American College of Physicians will be watching closely this month as the Supreme Court considers a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

 

In unity with other medical societies, ACP has already made its opinion known to the justices. “Through our public statements and briefs to the courts, we have never wavered in our support for patients and physicians: The ACA must remain the law of the land,” said Bob Doherty, ACP senior vice president for governmental affairs and public policy. “It's not hyperbole to say that the entire health care system hangs in the balance.”

 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas on Nov. 10. The state of Texas and 19 other states challenged the ACA in 2018, charging that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional because no penalty is assessed if people fail to get coverage. Seventeen states, led by California, are defending the ACA; the Trump administration declined to do so and instead supports overturning it.

 

The worst-case scenario will occur if the court overturns the entire ACA. Millions of Americans would lose insurance coverage, and there would be no more national protections against higher insurance rates and required benefits for people with preexisting conditions.

 

As the Kaiser Family Foundation notes, “the ACA also made other sweeping changes throughout the health care system including expanding Medicaid eligibility for low-income adults; requiring private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid expansion coverage of preventive services with no patient cost sharing; phasing out the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole coverage gap; reducing the growth of Medicare payments to health care providers and insurers; establishing new national initiatives to promote public health, care quality, and delivery system reforms; and authorizing a variety of tax increases to finance these changes. All of these provisions could be overturned if all or most of the ACA is struck down by the courts, and it would be enormously complex to disentangle these provisions from the overall health care system.”

Good. Let's hope that SCOTUS will uphold at least most of the ACA.

[caltrek]

Well, this would be a pleasant surprise.

 

Justice Kavanaugh Stuns Legal Experts by Suggesting he Will Save Obamacare

 

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/the-aca-is-safe-justice-kavanaugh-stuns-legal-experts-by-suggesting-he-will-save-obamacare/

 

Introduction:

(Alternet) Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday suggested that he could be the deciding vote in favor of saving former President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

 

During oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, Kavanaugh hinted that the provision could be struck down without invalidating the entire law.

 

"I tend to agree with you that this is a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place," Kavanaugh said.

 

"That strikes me as the ballgame," Supreme Court expert Ian Millhiser noted on Twitter.

[Futurist]

Great news!

[Raklian]

Great news!

 

Maybe but without the mandate, ACA has next to no teeth. It doesn't solve what ACA set out to do, having healthy people contribute to the pool so that sick people can be covered.

[caltrek]

 

Great news!

 

Maybe but without the mandate, ACA has next to no teeth. It doesn't solve what ACA set out to do, having healthy people contribute to the pool so that sick people can be covered.

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

 

The ACA is Doing Fine Without a Mandate Penalty

 

https://www.axios.co...f4ddc09116.html

 

Introduction:

(Axios) The Affordable Care Act’s insurance market has not been materially affected by the elimination of the individual mandate penalty — undercutting a key argument in the lawsuit urging the courts to strike down the health care law.

 

The big picture: Healthy enrollees have not left the market in droves, premiums have not spiked and there has been no market death spiral.

 

Details: Premiums spiked in earlier years, as insurers figured out the market and anticipated the elimination of the penalty, but are declining by an average of 2-3% in 2020.

• Healthy people do not appear to have fled the market. ACA enrollees spent fewer days in the hospital in 2019 than in the previous four years.
• The financial health of insurers participating in the ACA marketplaces is stable, and dramatically improved since the early years of the ACA. 
• Other elements of the ACA, such as the Medicaid expansion, appear to have been largely unaffected by the elimination of the penalty.

Flashback: ACA historians will remember that many critics of the mandate believed the penalty was too weak to drive the healthy into the marketplaces from the start.

• And real-world experience has shown that premium subsidies have been more important than the mandate penalty.

[Raklian]

^ My concern is that the participation is largely voluntary which can change quickly under certain circumstances. That's a risk that needs to be mitigated, in my view.

[Futurist]

 

Great news!

 

Maybe but without the mandate, ACA has next to no teeth. It doesn't solve what ACA set out to do, having healthy people contribute to the pool so that sick people can be covered.

A future Democratic US Congress can bring back the individual mandate/penalty/tax, no?

[caltrek]

Supreme Court Declines to Take Action on Trump’s Pennsylvania Appeal Prior to Certification of Biden Win

 

https://www.alternet...me-court-trump/

 

Introduction:

(Alternet) The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday took no action to overturn a lower court decision that allowed the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.

 

President Donald Trump's campaign had sought to exclude mail-in ballots that arrived after election day.

 

In 4-4 decision in October, the high court upheld the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling that said ballots postmarked by election day can arrive up to three days after the election.

 

The court later handed the Trump campaign a victory with an order saying that late-arriving ballots must be segregated before being counted.

 

The Trump campaign had hoped that the Supreme Court would hear the case prior to Pennsylvania's certification of the 2020 election.

[caltrek]

Alan Dershowitz Gives Bad News to Fox News' Bartiromo: ‘The outcome of the election will not be reversed’

 

https://www.alternet.../11/dershowitz/

 

Introduction:

(Alternet) One of President Donald Trump's most high profile legal defenders on Sunday said that he did not expect the results of the election to be reversed.

 

Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump at his impeachment trial earlier this year, told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo that the president's legal team has failed to prove claims that the election was stolen by Democrats.

 

"They have to show that it affected numbers greater than the margin of victory," Dershowitz explained. "They are not going to win on retail challenges here and there. The only chances they have of winning — and it's the perfect storm and it's very unlikely to happen — is if they can show retail wholesale constitutional arguments that affect a large number of voters sufficient to be greater than the margin of victory. I don't think they're there. I don't think they can make that case."

 

According to Dershowitz, the president's case is "very, very uphill."

 

"And if you're betting widow's and orphan's money, if you're betting money you can't afford to lose, you have to bet that the outcome of the election will not be reversed," he explained to Bartiromo.

[caltrek]

The nightmare scenario that kept playing in my head before the election was that it would be so close that the Supreme Court would find a way to nudge the resukt in Trump's direction.  I think I was proven right that this was the Trump strategy. Yet that gambit failed miserably. Why? 

 

Here is an article on that subject:

 

Why Trump’s Attempt to Steal the Election Was Too Much Even for Republican Judges

 

https://www.vox.com/...vanaugh-barrett

 

Extract:

(Vox) Why was Trump so wrong about his chances of seizing power by convincing the courts to overturn the election?

 

The answer is that Trump’s post-election lawsuits failed for a variety of interlocking reasons.

 

First, Trump and his allies just didn’t have very good legal arguments. In some cases, they brought penny-ante claims that couldn’t have changed the result of the election even if they prevailed. In others, they made factual claims that relied entirely on speculation — or even relied on conspiracy theories incubated on social media. In some cases, Trump or his allies made legal arguments that were the exact opposite of the arguments they made in other cases. There are no good legal arguments that could have justified tossing out the election results, and the clownishness of Trump’s legal strategy only drew attention to the weakness of his claims.

 

To be sure, judges are not immune to motivated reasoning, and it’s easy to find cases where highly partisan judges reached dubious conclusions that benefited their political party. But Trump’s lawyers gave the president’s would-be allies on the judiciary very little to work with if they hoped to craft a pro-Trump opinion that didn’t sound ridiculous. There are judges who place a thumb on the scales of justice, but even the most partisan judge can’t make a mouse weigh more than an elephant.

 

Basically, Trump didn't have the evidence on his side, and didn't have the law on his side. Even a court otherwise disposed to help him was simply not going to  "make a mouse weigh more than an elephant."

 

Still, as the article in the unextracted sections points out, many pre-election rulings favored voter suppression tactics.  The Court clearly tilted to the Republicans.  Yet the idiocy of the Trump team arguments was so extreme that even the court did not want to go there.  Still, many seemed to be now convinced that the Supreme Court was part of some deep state conspiracy to steal the election from Trump. They believe what a proven sociopathic liar tells them over all sorts of more credible public testimony and the findings of the various courts.  Findings often rendered by Trump's own appointees. Go figure.

[caltrek]

Supreme Court Punts on Trump Attempt to 'Use the Census as a Political Weapon to Disempower Communities of Color'

 

https://www.commondr...wer-communities

 

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) The U.S. Supreme Court's six right-wing justices on Friday disappointed democracy defenders and handed the outgoing administration at minimum a temporary victory regarding President Donald Trump's effort to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 census count—which will be used to allocate U.S. House of Representative seats to states—by concluding that "judicial resolution of this dispute is premature."

 

The punt in Trump v. New York is the latest development in a lengthy legal battle that followed the high court in 2019—when it had a different composition—blocking the Trump administration's attempt to include a citizenship question on the census. In the more recent ruling, the majority of justices said (pdf) that "consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented."

 

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, pushed back in a dissent, writing:

 

Under a straightforward application of our precedents, the plaintiffs have standing to sue. The question is ripe for resolution. And, in my view, the plaintiffs should also prevail on the merits. The plain meaning of the governing statutes, decades of historical practice, and uniform interpretations from all three branches of government demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status. The government's effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this court should say so.

 

The case was filed by Arnold & Porter, the national ACLU, and its New York, Southern California, and Texas affiliates on behalf of New York Immigration Coalition, Make the Road New York, CASA, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Research Institute, FIEL Houston, and AHRI for Justice. A group of state and local governments also challenged the president's relevant memorandum.